God: The Ultimate Author Of Evil?

[johndoe]

It has to be.

If you rationally follow CEN to its logical conclusion, God is ultimately responsible for absolutely everything, including outcomes.

The only argument I have ever seem made to try to explain this is that God, in effect, "rolled the dice" in creating us, creating us as agents to ourselves. The problem with this, however, is that when an all-powerful God who has created everything from nothing is taken into account, random chance cannot be rationally explained to exist for such a being. There can be no "rolling of the dice" because the outcomes are known beforehand. God is still ultimately responsible for all outcomes.

On the other hand, when we understand that a part of humans ("intelligence", per LDS doctrine) has existed forever, uncreated, and that God organizes the intelligences and empowers them to act on their own, then we - not God - become fully responsible for our own outcomes. God has created an opportunity and the results are dependent on our choices.

I see this as a basic philosophical difference. Perhaps it can truly be said that all Christians are, in effect, strict Calvinists if they hold to CEN, because of the rationale I have noted above.

I agree with most of what's said here, though I have reservations about the part in bold, and I know Chris would too. He would dispute your assertion that per a Calvninistic understanding, we cannot be responsible for our actions. This presupposes certain philosophical leanings that I don't believe Chris would agree with (and neither do I).

As to whether all Christians that accept creatio ex-nihilo are Calvinists - while I agree that the Arminian view isn't logically coherent, there are plenty who adhere to it anyway.

I know that Chris would take issue with the title of this thread. I do not believe he would accept that his view includes the concept that God is evil. First, on what external basis could God be judged? Second, if I recall correctly, his view is that God creates evil for the greater purpose of showing a portion of His nature in condemning that evil. He would stress that this understanding is derived from the Bible.

[jwhitlock]

I agree with most of what's said here, though I have reservations about the part in bold, and I know Chris would too. He would dispute your assertion that per a Calvninistic understanding, we cannot be responsible for our actions. This presupposes certain philosophical leanings that I don't believe Chris would agree with (and neither do I).

I'd been interested hearing in more detail about your reservations, and the philosophical leanings that you don't agree with.

Ultimately readings from the Bible on this subject must be interpreted in order to form the doctrine. Quite a bit of that interpretation tends to be philosophical in nature, trying to explain how such things could be. The basic philosophical foundation that CEN seems to indicate is that God, having created everything out of nothing, is also responsible for the level and operation of free will / agency / choice in the individual. This ultimately makes Him responsible for outcomes, since He would be responsible for having created (out of nothing) the conditions leading to those outcomes, including the condition of "choice".

One of the problematic areas, then, of CEN is that since we know that some people go to heaven, and others to hell, and since God is responsible for all outcomes, God is then an arbitrary and a capricious God. That concept, in turn, is contradictory of other parts of scripture.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say in more detail.

[jwhitlock]

Is evil something that can be created, or is it rather the absence of good, as darkness is the absence of light?

This is one of the interesting rationalizations that I've heard from a Christian standpoint, often also given with the example of cold / heat, because cold is really defined as the absence of heat.

However, I'm not sure that good can necessarily be defined as the absence of evil; the same case probably could be made that evil is the absence of good. Both good and evil are characterized by active effort in creating their existence out of something relatively neutral. Unlike the cold / heat example where heat is taken out to produce cold, effort is applied to both good and evil to make them happen.

Evil is something that actively happens, rather than being the residue (like cold) when heat is extracted. If good is extracted from something, the result is not necessarily evil, but could actually be morally neutral.

[Jason]

However, I'm not sure that good can necessarily be defined as the absence of evil; the same case probably could be made that evil is the absence of good.

Couldn't you similarly argue that cold is the absence of heat, or darkenss is the absence of light?

Both good and evil are characterized by active effort in creating their existence out of something relatively neutral. Unlike the cold / heat example where heat is taken out to produce cold, effort is applied to both good and evil to make them happen.

I'm not that there is such a thing as absolute neutrality between good and evil. Perhaps some action can appear to be morally neutral to our limited understanding, but is it really?

There are sins of omission - where refusing to do good results in evil. Is there a similar construct for doing good by omission? Or is refusing to do evil in fact a good action?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is evil something that can be created, or is it rather the absence of good, as darkness is the absence of light?

An omnipotent God could have created a world wherein the absence of good wasn't possible, no?

[captain-jack]

To be honest, I don't think that God created good or evil. Simply our ability to do either, and the natural laws of all-that-is allows us to do either.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I know that Chris would take issue with the title of this thread. I do not believe he would accept that his view includes the concept that God is evil. First, on what external basis could God be judged?

Yeah, that will get changed (the subtitle.) Still, God, in his view, created all evil. God is all evil and all good, he apparently is the source of both, no?

Second, if I recall correctly, his view is that God creates evil for the greater purpose of showing a portion of His nature in condemning that evil. He would stress that this understanding is derived from the Bible.

I don't believe an all-loving God would create a little child who suffers and dies without understanding any of it in order for God to prove He is condemning the actual thing he created. Such a thing is nonsense to me. That would be the equivalent of me ruthlessly beating an old, elderly, helpless woman and then turning around and saying "I am outraged by this beating! Look how outraged I am. Now you all know that I am outraged by this thing."

[Jason]

An omnipotent God could have created a world wherein the absence of good wasn't possible, no?

Only if you read "omnipotent" as "able to do absolutely anything" instead of "able to do anything logically possible".

[LDSMusic483]

An omnipotent God could have created a world wherein the absence of good wasn't possible, no?

According to your logic then, God could sin and remain perfect if he was omnipotent. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do every possible thing that is imagineable.

[jwhitlock]

Couldn't you similarly argue that cold is the absence of heat, or darkenss is the absence of light?

I'm not that there is such a thing as absolute neutrality between good and evil. Perhaps some action can appear to be morally neutral to our limited understanding, but is it really?

There are sins of omission - where refusing to do good results in evil. Is there a similar construct for doing good by omission? Or is refusing to do evil in fact a good action?

The argument concerning cold or darkness is that both are "produced" when their counterparts are eliminated.

You can't produce cold or darkness by applying something.

However, good and evil are produced by the application of something - usually actions. Hence, the analogy breaks down. Something totally evil can be absent of any good, and something totally good can be absent of any evil.

You are right, in reality, that virtually everything will tend towards good or evil. However, there must also exist a mid point or line which would, if possible, be the point at which both good and evil are absent. I can conceive of such a thing, while recognizing that it probably doesn't exist in the real world.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Only if you read "omnipotent" as "able to do absolutely anything" instead of "able to do anything logically possible".

Are you proposing a limited God?

According to your logic then, God could sin and remain perfect if he was omnipotent. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do every possible thing that is imagineable.

What is "omnipotence" then?

[Jason]

The argument concerning cold or darkness is that both are "produced" when their counterparts are eliminated.

You can't produce cold or darkness by applying something.

Can you produce evil by removing good?

However, good and evil are produced by the application of something - usually actions. Hence, the analogy breaks down. Something totally evil can be absent of any good, and something totally good can be absent of any evil.

I disagree. Perhaps something can be thought of as completely evil in the abstract (just as something can be thought of as completely cold or completely dark), but I don't think any person can be totally evil - even the most evil person does something because they believe it will give them some benefit - some good, in other words. Likewise any deed had some purpose behind it that the doer thought was in some measure good.

You are right, in reality, that virtually everything will tend towards good or evil. However, there must also exist a mid point or line which would, if possible, be the point at which both good and evil are absent. I can conceive of such a thing, while recognizing that it probably doesn't exist in the real world.

You can also conceive of total darkness and total cold, but that doesn't mean that darkness and cold are anything but an absence of their counterpart.

There is no line at which something is exactly between hot and cold or darkness and light, and there might not be such a line between good and evil either.

[Jason]

Are you proposing a limited God?

God can't sin, or create a square circle, or create a rock too heavey for him to lift, or a tamale too spicey for him to eat, etc. So yes, He has limits - the limits of what is logically possible.

What is "omnipotence" then?

The ability to do anything logically possible.

[Sleeper Cell]

An omnipotent God could have created a world wherein the absence of good wasn't possible, no?

Didnâ??t somebody make a similar suggestion before this world was created?

[jwhitlock]

Can you produce evil by removing good?

I disagree. Perhaps something can be thought of as completely evil in the abstract (just as something can be thought of as completely cold or completely dark), but I don't think any person can be totally evil - even the most evil person does something because they believe it will give them some benefit - some good, in other words. Likewise any deed had some purpose behind it that the doer thought was in some measure good.

You can also conceive of total darkness and total cold, but that doesn't mean that darkness and cold are anything but an absence of their counterpart.

There is no line at which something is exactly between hot and cold or darkness and light, and there might not be such a line between good and evil either.

Again, the analogy breaks down because both good and evil are actively produced, unlike cold or darkness. You apply something to create both good and evil. You do not do that to produce cold or darkness.

The point was that I've seen that analogy applied on the Christian side in claiming that evil is merely the absence of good. That does not appear to be the case.

[johndoe]

I'd been interested hearing in more detail about your reservations, and the philosophical leanings that you don't agree with.

Ultimately readings from the Bible on this subject must be interpreted in order to form the doctrine. Quite a bit of that interpretation tends to be philosophical in nature, trying to explain how such things could be. The basic philosophical foundation that CEN seems to indicate is that God, having created everything out of nothing, is also responsible for the level and operation of free will / agency / choice in the individual. This ultimately makes Him responsible for outcomes, since He would be responsible for having created (out of nothing) the conditions leading to those outcomes, including the condition of "choice".

One of the problematic areas, then, of CEN is that since we know that some people go to heaven, and others to hell, and since God is responsible for all outcomes, God is then an arbitrary and a capricious God. That concept, in turn, is contradictory of other parts of scripture.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say in more detail.

I agree that belief in God creating ex-nihilo, who is also absolutely omnipotent and omniscient results in God being ultimately responsible for everything. What I disagree with, is the suggestion that we would then not be responsible for our own actions. This idea presupposes one of the assumptions underlying libertarian free will, i.e. that we must actually be able to choose otherwise in order to be morally responsible in any relevant sense. I am a compatibilist on free will - I accept both determinism and that we are free, while I reject the concept of libertarian free will. So I view us as being free in much the same way Chris does. The difference is in God's responsibility, not ours.

Regarding arguments about Chris's view resulting in an arbitrary and capricious God, I have seen folks respond by simply asking: do you not believe the Bible? While I think it is dubious to base an understanding on what anyone might term "what the Bible clearly teaches", I believe this is a common approach.

[LDSMusic483]

Are you proposing a limited God?What is "omnipotence" then?

I would say omnipotence is the ability to act with all power within the spectrum of which a God can act (i.e. those things which would not cause God to cease to be God.

[Jason]

Again, the analogy breaks down because both good and evil are actively produced, unlike cold or darkness. You apply something to create both good and evil. You do not do that to produce cold or darkness.

This seems to be the pivot point, and I'm not sure about the idea that you must "actively produce" evil. Can you provide some analogies or demonstrations?

[jwhitlock]

God can't sin, or create a square circle, or create a rock too heavey for him to lift, or a tamale too spicey for him to eat, etc. So yes, He has limits - the limits of what is logically possible.

The ability to do anything logically possible.

Actually, this differs somewhat from other non-LDS Christians I've talked with, who indicate that (for instance) God cannot sin because anything He does is not a sin, while if we did some of the same things, they would be sins. God cannot sin because He is God, and whatever He does - no matter what it is - cannot come under the category of sin.

The most common response from my non-LDS Christian acquaintances concerning the "logically possible" situation you mention is that God's ways are not our ways, so He can do things that we cannot logically comprehend - because He is God. It tends to fall somewhat under the category of "mysteries" in that case.

It appears that there seems to be a difference of doctrinal opinion, among non-LDS Christians, concerning the nature of God.

[johndoe]

The ability to do anything logically possible.

Technically, you may be extending the limitations beyond what is simply logically possible, depending on your point of view.

Is it true that God cannot lie? I believe that this is true. Why? There is no logical contradiction involved in stating that God can lie, if you are a libertarian with regard to free will. In fact, one of my criticisms of libertarian free will as applied to LDS doctrine is that in order to consider God to be free, and therefore morally responsible in a true sense, He must be actually capable of making choices that are less than morally perfect.

With a view closer to my own, it actually is a logical contradiction for God to act contrary to His nature.

[jwhitlock]

This seems to be the pivot point, and I'm not sure about the idea that you must "actively produce" evil. Can you provide some analogies or demonstrations?

Evil is produced by our actions and our thoughts. While good can crowd out evil, evil can also crowd out good. Such is the nature of choice, to choose one way or the other. It is an active choice, by design, which requires that we do something to go in either direction.

If evil were simply the absence of good, then we would need to do nothing in order to be evil. However, evil is always the result of choice and is something tangible and produced - unlike cold or darkness.

Take any evil action that you want to think of - murder, for instance - and you can see that evil is created in its own right, not something left over when all good is extracted.

[johndoe]

Actually, this differs somewhat from other non-LDS Christians I've talked with, who indicate that (for instance) God cannot sin because anything He does is not a sin, while if we did some of the same things, they would be sins. God cannot sin because He is God, and whatever He does - no matter what it is - cannot come under the category of sin.

The most common response from my non-LDS Christian acquaintances concerning the "logically possible" situation you mention is that God's ways are not our ways, so He can do things that we cannot logically comprehend - because He is God. It tends to fall somewhat under the category of "mysteries" in that case.

It appears that there seems to be a difference of doctrinal opinion, among non-LDS Christians, concerning the nature of God.

It is consistent for nonLDS Christians to state that God cannot sin because, in their view, God is the definition of good. It is important to keep in mind that they do not consider God to be bound by any law external to Him. IOW, there is no yardstick by which God could be measured, and found wanting. He is the yardstick.

As to whether God is bound by logic, I think that very few theists would disagree.

If God is truly not bound by logic, then the proper answer to the question about being able to create rock so heavy even He can't lift it would be:

Yes, He can. But He could still lift the rock.

[jwhitlock]

I agree that belief in God creating ex-nihilo, who is also absolutely omnipotent and omniscient results in God being ultimately responsible for everything. What I disagree with, is the suggestion that we would then not be responsible for our own actions. This idea presupposes one of the assumptions underlying libertarian free will, i.e. that we must actually be able to choose otherwise in order to be morally responsible in any relevant sense. I am a compatibilist on free will - I accept both determinism and that we are free, while I reject the concept of libertarian free will. So I view us as being free in much the same way Chris does. The difference is in God's responsibility, not ours.

As you are aware, LDS would be more libertarian in this respect.

While under a stricter compatibilist viewpoint we are responsible, it would appear to me that God would also be jointly responsible for our actions. Hence the inconsistency arises from condemning only one of the responsible parties in that case.

One of the things that LDS have a very hard time understanding is how determinism and freedom of choice are compatible, especially since under determinism our choices would have been pre-constrained for us. If you could provide some additional clarification on how those two seemingly incompatible items can work together, I'd appreciate it.

Regarding arguments about Chris's view resulting in an arbitrary and capricious God, I have seen folks respond by simply asking: do you not believe the Bible? While I think it is dubious to base an understanding on what anyone might term "what the Bible clearly teaches", I believe this is a common approach.

To which I usually respond, which interpretation of the Bible are you referring to? In the end, it's always about interpretation of the passages in question, hence the application of philosophy to the process.

[jwhitlock]

It is consistent for nonLDS Christians to state that God cannot sin because, in their view, God is the definition of good. It is important to keep in mind that they do not consider God to be bound by any law external to Him. IOW, there is no yardstick by which God could be measured, and found wanting. He is the yardstick.

This is generally consistent from what I understand of non-LDS Christians.

I also understand that, in effect, God works by a different set of rules than we do. He is the yardstick; we cannot measure ourselves against it, according to non-LDS Christian philosophy. However, it the same time we are given Christ as our example, to be like Him, and indeed we are commanded to be like our Father in Heaven. Hence, it appears to be incompatible in that if we live up to the yardstick God provides, we - in our actions - may sin, while God cannot sin.

The concept of a God unbound by any law appears to lead to a number of inconsistencies such as this.

If God is truly not bound by logic, then the proper answer to the question about being able to create rock so heavy even He can't lift it would be:

Yes, He can. But He could still lift the rock.

For some reason, I tend to be less interested in the philosophical impossibilities than I do about more direct questions such as sin, in this case.

[LifeOnaPlate]

God can't sin, or create a square circle, or create a rock too heavey for him to lift, or a tamale too spicey for him to eat, etc. So yes, He has limits - the limits of what is logically possible.

The ability to do anything logically possible.

Ok, that sidesteps the argument of evil, however. Could God have avoided the creation of evil? If so, why didn't he? If not, why not?